Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method

Expand Messages
  • Martin Janda
    Sorry, I am typing faster than thinking :-) I guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you suggest - I would try to avoid metoda and
    Message 1 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Sorry, I am typing faster than thinking :-)

      I guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you suggest -
      I would try to avoid "metoda" and leave the rest - depends on context
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
      To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:51 AM
      Subject: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


      > Hi list,
      >
      >
      > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
      >
      > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
      > metoda stretu pravnich norem
      >
      > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set expression...
      >
      > Thanks
      >
      > Matej
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
      >
      > Czechlist resources:
      > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
      >
      > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
    • Matej Klimes
      Ahoj Martine, I m thinking slower than you re typing :) ... Co tim myslis?? As for context, (for example): Private international law has often demonstrated a
      Message 2 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Ahoj Martine,

        I'm thinking slower than you're typing :)

        > guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you suggest

        Co tim myslis??

        As for context, (for example):

        "Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the conflict
        of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
        sometimes uncertain"

        BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
        structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this
        sentence (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it for 10
        times. Argh, the joys of EU documents.... (I'm sure it was translated by a
        native speaker, but that does not make it less awkward:)


        There obviously is something called "conflict of laws method" - yes,
        konflikt/kolize zakonu have plenty of hits, but metoda kolize zakolu etc.
        has none, any ideas?

        Diky

        Matej




        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Martin Janda" <mjanda@...>
        To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:06 AM
        Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


        > Sorry, I am typing faster than thinking :-)
        >
        > I guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you
        suggest -
        > I would try to avoid "metoda" and leave the rest - depends on context
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
        > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:51 AM
        > Subject: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method
        >
        >
        > > Hi list,
        > >
        > >
        > > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
        > >
        > > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
        > > metoda stretu pravnich norem
        > >
        > > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set expression...
        > >
        > > Thanks
        > >
        > > Matej
        > >
        > >
        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > >
        > >
        > > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
        > >
        > > Czechlist resources:
        > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
        > >
        > > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
        > >
        > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        > >
        > >
        > >
        >
        >
        > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
        >
        > Czechlist resources:
        > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
        >
        > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
      • Martin Janda
        Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu... M. ... From: Matej Klimes To: Sent: Tuesday,
        Message 3 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu...

          M.
          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
          To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 12:36 PM
          Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


          > Ahoj Martine,
          >
          > I'm thinking slower than you're typing :)
          >
          > > guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you suggest
          >
          > Co tim myslis??
          >
          > As for context, (for example):
          >
          > "Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
          conflict
          > of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
          > sometimes uncertain"
          >
          > BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
          > structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind
          this
          > sentence (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it for 10
          > times. Argh, the joys of EU documents.... (I'm sure it was translated by a
          > native speaker, but that does not make it less awkward:)
          >
          >
          > There obviously is something called "conflict of laws method" - yes,
          > konflikt/kolize zakonu have plenty of hits, but metoda kolize zakolu etc.
          > has none, any ideas?
          >
          > Diky
          >
          > Matej
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Martin Janda" <mjanda@...>
          > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 11:06 AM
          > Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method
          >
          >
          > > Sorry, I am typing faster than thinking :-)
          > >
          > > I guess there is in fact no other way of translating than what you
          > suggest -
          > > I would try to avoid "metoda" and leave the rest - depends on context
          > > ----- Original Message -----
          > > From: "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@...>
          > > To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
          > > Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:51 AM
          > > Subject: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method
          > >
          > >
          > > > Hi list,
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
          > > >
          > > > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
          > > > metoda stretu pravnich norem
          > > >
          > > > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set expression...
          > > >
          > > > Thanks
          > > >
          > > > Matej
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          > > >
          > > >
          > > > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
          > > >
          > > > Czechlist resources:
          > > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
          > > >
          > > > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          > > >
          > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > > >
          > > >
          > > >
          > >
          > >
          > > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
          > >
          > > Czechlist resources:
          > > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
          > >
          > > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          > >
          > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
          http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          > >
          >
          >
          > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
          >
          > Czechlist resources:
          > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
          >
          > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
          >
          >
          >
        • Jirka Bolech
          Hi Matej, ... setback of the conflict ... which are ... As far as I can judge from what the Anglicko-cesky ekonomicky slovnik by Jiri Elman and Kamila
          Message 4 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Matej,

            > "Private international law has often demonstrated a
            setback of the conflict
            > of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules,
            which are
            > sometimes uncertain"

            As far as I can judge from what the "Anglicko-cesky
            ekonomicky slovnik" by Jiri Elman and Kamila Semberova
            shows, "private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
            are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome"; I have
            found "kolize pravnich norem" for the latter in another
            source too. I am myself more puzzled by "material rules".
            Well, such legalese wasn't made to be understood by common
            folks.

            I don't think that the "method" is such a big deal to
            translate, but I doubt it's a fixed expression.

            > (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it
            for 10
            > times.

            Oh, this is the easy part I guess. "In favour of" is simply
            <"ve prospech" + genitive>.

            Jirka Bolech
          • Matej Klimes
            Thanks Martin and Jirka, Martin: Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu... Zajimavy napad, ale nemyslim, ze by se hodil na zbytek dokumentu,
            Message 5 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks Martin and Jirka,

              Martin:

              Aha, pardon. Tak v tom pripade: metoda *reseni* konfliktu...

              Zajimavy napad, ale nemyslim, ze by se hodil na zbytek dokumentu, to by snad
              rekli neco jako "method for solving conflict of law"?? No, jeste se pokusim
              neco vymyslet....


              Jirka:
              "private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
              > are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";

              hmm, that does not make sense to me at all - I'm not a legal expert by any
              means and yes, lawyers love to say theing we laymen won't understand, but
              they can't possibly go this far?


              I have
              > found "kolize pravnich norem" for the latter in another
              > source too.

              My problem was to decide between "metoda kolize pravnich norem" and another
              expression much to the same extent, I think it was "metoda konfliktu zakonu"
              and combination thereof, since the English three word term is used in the
              doc as naturally (and "we don't need to even hint at what this is") as one
              would use something like "big brown envelope", plus I was told it was a
              concrete method, I was trying to check which translation/Czech version might
              be applicable, but obviously didn't chance uppon the widely-used (if there
              is) one....


              > > (especially the "in favour part") even after reading it
              > for 10
              > > times.
              >
              > Oh, this is the easy part I guess. "In favour of" is simply
              > <"ve prospech" + genitive>.

              Well, I don't have the slightest problem with in favour, I can assure you of
              that, Jirka, I have a problem with fitting it into the (what I think is)
              logic behind this particular sentence...... does it fit for you?

              Thanks anyway

              Matej











              >
              > Jirka Bolech
              >
              >
              > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
              >
              > Czechlist resources:
              > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
              >
              > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
            • Michael Trittipo
              ... I don t envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do French-to-English besides Cz|Sk Eng. Usually, a setback would mean a loss of ground;
              Message 6 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                >
                >
                >"Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the conflict
                >of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
                >sometimes uncertain"
                >
                >BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
                >structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind this
                >sentence (especially the "in favour part") . . ..
                >
                I don't envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do
                French-to-English besides Cz|Sk>Eng.

                Usually, "a setback" would mean a loss of ground; that something which
                was winning has lost, but perhaps only for the time being, i.e., an
                eventual possible victory has only been delayed, not forever foreclosed.
                But you're right; the flavour here is off, especially with the "often"
                and "demonstrated" bits. (The "in favour of" doesn't bother me as much,
                though it is one of the reasons for considering a second possible
                meaning.) (The "material" here should clearly mean "substantive" -- v
                podstate, nikoliv jenom formalni, ani jenom procesualni. So that's an
                easy one.) So here's two possible versions of that sentence (anglicky):

                The first assumes that "setback" has been chosen as a not-terribly-good
                translation of something that ought to be more like "rejection" but as
                having the flavor of one thing losing ground (or "market share" if you
                will) in favour of another which is gaining ground (or becoming more
                popular):

                "Private international law has often seen rejection of the usual
                application of conflict-of-law principles, and adoption in their place
                of substantive rules, although* these latter are sometimes not [as]
                definite [as some might desire][OR - "are sometimes not susceptible to
                mechanical application]."

                (The use of "and . . . in their place" replaces the "in favour of" --
                "he rejected plan A in favour of plan B" means he rejected plan A and
                did so because he found plan B to be better.) (As for "seen" versus
                "demonstrated," that would be a relic of the original Fr>En process. It
                would be wonderful if you could get your hands on a French original.)

                The second assumes a different reason for wrongly using "setback" and it
                assumes that "in favour of the adoption" was meant to modify "method" as
                a prepositional phrase, NOT to be a coordinating clause:

                "Private international law has often shown a disadvantage in applying
                usual conflict-of-law principles that favour adoption of this or that
                substantive rule, because the substantive rules themselves are sometimes
                uncertain."

                Maybe, having entire paragraphs before and after this sentence, you can
                see which meaning fits logically with the overall flow of the author's
                reasoning or exposition. Boy, would it help to have the French. But
                without it, I can explain where each of the two possible meanings is
                coming from. (There may be other possible meanings, too -- these are
                the first two that come to mind as most likely, but I'm open to good
                suggestions.)

                The first meaning is based on the idea that the parties can decide in
                their own contracts what law will govern their dealings in what
                respects. The first meaning would then be commenting on a supposed
                trend by the parties (presumably, for this meaning, fairly large,
                sophisticated contracting entities) to NOT simply say "Angolan law" or
                "Fijian law", and to go beyond that to try, themselves, to write up the
                substantive rules that should be applied. Of course, doing that would
                be VERY difficult, probably even impossible to do completely -- and even
                the most sophisticated or capable parties and lawyers might not succeed
                in getting the rules expressed very clearly. Alternatively, the first
                meaning could be about courts and judges trying to reject being forced
                simply to choose between country A's law or country B's, and trying to
                start creating a kind of "common law of international dealings" without
                reference to EITHER country A or B. (It's the uncertainty between who's
                doing the rejecting or setting back, that led me to choose the passive
                voice.)

                The second meaning is based on an appreciation of the fact that the
                classic statements of conflict-of-laws (choice-of-laws, if you will)
                principles can lead to odd circles of reasoning or paradoxes, ESPECIALLY
                if jurisdictions A & B each make the choice of law depend on whether a
                given issue is substantive or procedural, BUT each of the jurisdictions
                has a DIFFERENT classification about whether THAT PARTICULAR issue is
                substantive or not, or procedural or not. With 50 independent countries
                federated into one in the United States, this kind of issue over
                conflict of laws (private inter-state law or private international law,
                if you will) has arisen thousands of times, so pretty much all possible
                approaches have been tried. You DON'T want a catalogue of them. <grin>
                But at least one approach is to try to set up a few substantive rules
                for recurring kinds of cases, somehow outside of any particular state's
                substantive rules.

                Don't know whether this helps. If you can find the French, that would
                be wonderful.
              • Matej Klimes
                Hi Michael, thanks for the time you took, Here s the French version not that far from English AFAICT: On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un
                Message 7 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hi Michael, thanks for the time you took,

                  Here's the French version not that far from English AFAICT:

                  On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un recul de la methode
                  conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le contenu parait
                  pafois bien incertain.

                  Sorry, no energy left to do the accents, but there's not many of them...

                  Don't spend too much time on this, I'm mostly concerned about the method
                  thing.

                  Was it me who said that he would not touch EU stuff with a bargepole only a
                  year ago??? Now I'm in the middle of correcting two completely f**ed-up
                  translations [of un-english originals too].... ach jo.

                  Thanks again,
                  Matej


                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: "Michael Trittipo" <tritt002@...>
                  To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
                  Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 3:43 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Czechlist] Conflict of Laws Method


                  > >
                  > >
                  > >"Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
                  conflict
                  > >of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules, which are
                  > >sometimes uncertain"
                  > >
                  > >BTW - this is a French to English original, so some of the sentence
                  > >structure is somewhat off - I'm not sure I understand the logic behind
                  this
                  > >sentence (especially the "in favour part") . . ..
                  > >
                  > I don't envy you that one. Do you happen to have the French? I do
                  > French-to-English besides Cz|Sk>Eng.
                  >
                  > Usually, "a setback" would mean a loss of ground; that something which
                  > was winning has lost, but perhaps only for the time being, i.e., an
                  > eventual possible victory has only been delayed, not forever foreclosed.
                  > But you're right; the flavour here is off, especially with the "often"
                  > and "demonstrated" bits. (The "in favour of" doesn't bother me as much,
                  > though it is one of the reasons for considering a second possible
                  > meaning.) (The "material" here should clearly mean "substantive" -- v
                  > podstate, nikoliv jenom formalni, ani jenom procesualni. So that's an
                  > easy one.) So here's two possible versions of that sentence (anglicky):
                  >
                  > The first assumes that "setback" has been chosen as a not-terribly-good
                  > translation of something that ought to be more like "rejection" but as
                  > having the flavor of one thing losing ground (or "market share" if you
                  > will) in favour of another which is gaining ground (or becoming more
                  > popular):
                  >
                  > "Private international law has often seen rejection of the usual
                  > application of conflict-of-law principles, and adoption in their place
                  > of substantive rules, although* these latter are sometimes not [as]
                  > definite [as some might desire][OR - "are sometimes not susceptible to
                  > mechanical application]."
                  >
                  > (The use of "and . . . in their place" replaces the "in favour of" --
                  > "he rejected plan A in favour of plan B" means he rejected plan A and
                  > did so because he found plan B to be better.) (As for "seen" versus
                  > "demonstrated," that would be a relic of the original Fr>En process. It
                  > would be wonderful if you could get your hands on a French original.)
                  >
                  > The second assumes a different reason for wrongly using "setback" and it
                  > assumes that "in favour of the adoption" was meant to modify "method" as
                  > a prepositional phrase, NOT to be a coordinating clause:
                  >
                  > "Private international law has often shown a disadvantage in applying
                  > usual conflict-of-law principles that favour adoption of this or that
                  > substantive rule, because the substantive rules themselves are sometimes
                  > uncertain."
                  >
                  > Maybe, having entire paragraphs before and after this sentence, you can
                  > see which meaning fits logically with the overall flow of the author's
                  > reasoning or exposition. Boy, would it help to have the French. But
                  > without it, I can explain where each of the two possible meanings is
                  > coming from. (There may be other possible meanings, too -- these are
                  > the first two that come to mind as most likely, but I'm open to good
                  > suggestions.)
                  >
                  > The first meaning is based on the idea that the parties can decide in
                  > their own contracts what law will govern their dealings in what
                  > respects. The first meaning would then be commenting on a supposed
                  > trend by the parties (presumably, for this meaning, fairly large,
                  > sophisticated contracting entities) to NOT simply say "Angolan law" or
                  > "Fijian law", and to go beyond that to try, themselves, to write up the
                  > substantive rules that should be applied. Of course, doing that would
                  > be VERY difficult, probably even impossible to do completely -- and even
                  > the most sophisticated or capable parties and lawyers might not succeed
                  > in getting the rules expressed very clearly. Alternatively, the first
                  > meaning could be about courts and judges trying to reject being forced
                  > simply to choose between country A's law or country B's, and trying to
                  > start creating a kind of "common law of international dealings" without
                  > reference to EITHER country A or B. (It's the uncertainty between who's
                  > doing the rejecting or setting back, that led me to choose the passive
                  > voice.)
                  >
                  > The second meaning is based on an appreciation of the fact that the
                  > classic statements of conflict-of-laws (choice-of-laws, if you will)
                  > principles can lead to odd circles of reasoning or paradoxes, ESPECIALLY
                  > if jurisdictions A & B each make the choice of law depend on whether a
                  > given issue is substantive or procedural, BUT each of the jurisdictions
                  > has a DIFFERENT classification about whether THAT PARTICULAR issue is
                  > substantive or not, or procedural or not. With 50 independent countries
                  > federated into one in the United States, this kind of issue over
                  > conflict of laws (private inter-state law or private international law,
                  > if you will) has arisen thousands of times, so pretty much all possible
                  > approaches have been tried. You DON'T want a catalogue of them. <grin>
                  > But at least one approach is to try to set up a few substantive rules
                  > for recurring kinds of cases, somehow outside of any particular state's
                  > substantive rules.
                  >
                  > Don't know whether this helps. If you can find the French, that would
                  > be wonderful.
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
                  >
                  > Czechlist resources:
                  > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
                  >
                  > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
                  >
                  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                  >
                • Michael
                  Message 8 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    << On constate souvent, en droit international prive, un recul de la
                    methode conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le
                    contenu parait pafois bien incertain. >>

                    Thanks! That helps. Instead of the version you had:

                    "Private international law has often demonstrated a setback of the
                    conflict of law method in favour of the adoption of material rules,
                    which are sometimes uncertain"

                    I might try something more like the following in English (patience --
                    I'll do something stupid and try going into Czech instead of just out
                    of it in a minute):

                    "It is often noted in regard to private international law that the
                    conflict-resolving method is becoming less used, its place being
                    taken by substantive rules whose content seems sometimes quite
                    uncertain."

                    or even

                    "It is often noted that the trend in private international law is
                    away from mechanical choice-of-law rules and towards substantive
                    rules whose content seems sometimes uncertain."

                    The "méthode conflictualiste" is simply an approach or procedure (I
                    wouldn't get hung up on the word "method") for choosing between two
                    sets of substantive (i.e., non-choice-of-law) rules, if and when
                    there is a conflict between two (or more) possibly applicable laws.

                    So "kolizni metoda" should be OK; or "kolizni normy" or "zpusob
                    urcovani rozhodneho prava"? Something built around "Urcovani
                    rozhodneho prava pomoci koliznich norem ustupuje, zatimco pouziti
                    [primych] hmotnepravnich pravidel vzrusta"?

                    From that approach, it sounds more as though the kind of thing the
                    author is talking about is, for example, the Vienna Convention, which
                    starts creating some substantive rules of sales law directly, rather
                    than just setting up rules for how to choose which country's sales
                    law will apply. So you can ignore all my previous nonsense, guessing
                    on the basis of bad English. My money now is on the author drawing a
                    distinction here between the old ways premised on lex fori, lex loci
                    delicti, lex contractus, atd., and new ways based on treaties that
                    actually try to create substantive rules, not just rules for choosing
                    between someone *else's* sets of substantive rules.
                  • Michael
                    ... Sorry, pouzivani, not pouziti. Also, I noticed the following discussion while rooting around -- note the last three lines ***: Otázka kolize pořadí je
                    Message 9 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In Czechlist@y..., "Michael" <tritt002@t...> wrote:
                      > << On constate . . . en droit international prive, un recul de la
                      > methode conflictualiste au profit de regles materielles dont le
                      > contenu parait pafois bien incertain. >>

                      > "It is often noted that the trend in private international law is
                      > away from mechanical choice-of-law rules and towards substantive
                      > rules whose content seems sometimes uncertain."
                      >
                      > . . . "Urcovani
                      > rozhodneho prava pomoci koliznich norem ustupuje, zatimco pouziti
                      > [primych] hmotnepravnich pravidel vzrusta"?

                      Sorry, pouzivani, not pouziti. Also, I noticed the following
                      discussion while rooting around -- note the last three lines ***:

                      "Otázka kolize poøadí je øešena v §2 ZMPS – ustanovení tohoto zákona
                      se použije jen pokud nestanoví nìco jiného mezinárodní smlouva,
                      kterou je ÈR vázána. Stejná ustanovení mají také ZRØ a obch. zák.
                      (§756)

                      Na základì §2 ZMPS se nepoužije ustanovení tohoto zákona nejen,
                      jestliže . . . mezinárodní smlouvou ***jsou pro úpravu dané otázky
                      stanoveny hmotnìprávní pøímé normy, tzn. v dùsledku pøímé úpravy
                      odpadá vùbec používání kolizních norem***"

                      That *** bit sounds as though it's talking about the same thing the
                      French is.
                    • Michael
                      ... Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne patri mezinarodnim pravu
                      Message 10 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        > >"private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
                        > >are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";
                        >hmm, that does not make sense to me at all . . ..

                        Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se
                        nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne
                        patri mezinarodnim pravu verjenem. Az dosud, mezinarodni pravo
                        soukrome nebylo skoro nic jineho nez soubor koliznich norem: normy
                        cim se resila problematika volby rozhodneho prava. Ale -- podle
                        autora a musim priznat i v skutecosti -- uz nekolik desitky let se
                        objevuje novy system, tak ze mezinarodni pravo soukrome uz obsahuje
                        nejen kolizni normy, ale taky (ackoliv jenom dosud v nekolika
                        omezenych oblastech) prima hmotnepravna pravidla. Podle autora
                        puvodniho dokumentu, pouzivani primych hmotnepravnych pravidla bude
                        cim dal, tim vic nahradit soucasny system pouzivani koliznich norem.
                        Priklad je Videnska umluva o koupe zbozi. Tak ze ty dve vyrazy byly
                        synonymy, ale ted uz nejsou docela.

                        No, aspon takhle si to predstavim podle te jedne vety, co jsme
                        cetli. Ale errare humanum est. :-)
                      • jorix24
                        Zdravim, navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi, ze Conflict of laws je
                        Message 11 of 16 , Dec 3, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Zdravim,
                          navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a
                          tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi,
                          ze "Conflict of laws" je opravdu "mezinarodni pravo soukrome". Takze
                          bych se osobne priklanela k tomuto prekladu. Co se tyce tech methods,
                          tak asi "metody mezinarodniho prava soukromeho", pripadne ze
                          by "metodika"?
                          Jana Louvarova


                          --- In Czechlist@y..., "Matej Klimes" <mklimes@m...> wrote:
                          > Hi list,
                          >
                          >
                          > anyone has a suggestion for Czech translation of the above?
                          >
                          > metoda kolize/konfliktu zakonu
                          > metoda stretu pravnich norem
                          >
                          > both don't work on Google, I am told that this is a set
                          expression...
                          >
                          > Thanks
                          >
                          > Matej
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • Matej Klimes
                          Michael, I think you d deserve the money I m supposed to pay the person who did the original (and very poor) translation..... I don t have enough legal
                          Message 12 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Michael, I think you'd deserve the money I'm supposed to pay the person who
                            did the original (and very poor) translation.....

                            I don't have enough legal expertise to deal with this myself, but I fw'd it
                            to people who can.

                            Thanks

                            Matej


                            ----- Original Message -----
                            From: "Michael" <tritt002@...>
                            To: <Czechlist@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 12:23 AM
                            Subject: [Czechlist] Re: Conflict of Laws Method


                            > > >"private international law" and "conflict of Laws"
                            > > >are synonyms meaning "mezinarodni pravo soukrome";
                            > >hmm, that does not make sense to me at all . . ..
                            >
                            > Prave v tom je smysl toho, co napsal puvodni autor, jestli se
                            > nemylim. Mezinarodni pravo soukrome je to mezinarodni pravo, co ne
                            > patri mezinarodnim pravu verjenem. Az dosud, mezinarodni pravo
                            > soukrome nebylo skoro nic jineho nez soubor koliznich norem: normy
                            > cim se resila problematika volby rozhodneho prava. Ale -- podle
                            > autora a musim priznat i v skutecosti -- uz nekolik desitky let se
                            > objevuje novy system, tak ze mezinarodni pravo soukrome uz obsahuje
                            > nejen kolizni normy, ale taky (ackoliv jenom dosud v nekolika
                            > omezenych oblastech) prima hmotnepravna pravidla. Podle autora
                            > puvodniho dokumentu, pouzivani primych hmotnepravnych pravidla bude
                            > cim dal, tim vic nahradit soucasny system pouzivani koliznich norem.
                            > Priklad je Videnska umluva o koupe zbozi. Tak ze ty dve vyrazy byly
                            > synonymy, ale ted uz nejsou docela.
                            >
                            > No, aspon takhle si to predstavim podle te jedne vety, co jsme
                            > cetli. Ale errare humanum est. :-)
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > Czechlist archive: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Czechlist
                            >
                            > Czechlist resources:
                            > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/7953/Intro.html
                            >
                            > Post message: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
                            >
                            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                            >
                          • Michael Trittipo
                            ... S tim bych souhlasil, do té (velmi velké) míry, že zdaleka největší část mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožné s tou oblástí, kterou
                            Message 13 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              jorix24 wrote:

                              >navstevuji ted doplnujici pravnicke studium pro prekladatele a
                              >tlumocniky pri prav. fakulte v Praze a tam nam dusledne tvrdi,
                              >ze "Conflict of laws" je opravdu "mezinarodni pravo soukrome".
                              >
                              S tim bych souhlasil, do té (velmi velké) míry, že zdaleka největší část
                              mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožné s tou oblástí, kterou v
                              angličtině má název conflict of laws. Jenomže vždycky jsou výjimky. (No,
                              *skoro* vždycky bývají <úsměv>)

                              Podle http://www.ekf.vsb.cz/KAT/K119/predmety/11907.doc, zdá se, že
                              teoretičtí práva začínají rozlišovat mezi obvyklým používáním kolizních
                              metod, i používáním přímého řešení několika otázek prostředníctvím úmluv
                              atd. V tom, co nasleduje, citují jenom nejvýznamnější věty; věta v ***
                              bych označil jako výjímkou oproti obvýklé kolizní metodě, pravě protože
                              tímto přímým řešením podle úmluvy se žadná kolize ani střet neobjevuje
                              mezi pouze státními normami:

                              "Osnova předmětu:
                              # Mezinárodní právo soukromé, kolizní normy, volba práva, principy
                              mezinárodního práva soukromého.
                              # Volba práva, kolizní problematika, určování rozhodného práva v
                              souvislosti s konkrétním smluvním vztahem.
                              *** # Přímé normy mezinárodního práva soukromého. ***
                              # Vídeňská úmluva OSN o smlouvách o mezinárodní koupi zboží, New Yorská
                              úmluva o promlčení v souvislosti s mezinárodní koupi zboží.
                              # Standardizovaná pravidla - standardizované smluvní podmínky (doložky
                              dodání INCOTERMS a d.)."

                              Viz taky http://www.law.muni.cz/katedry/22170.html
                              "Cílem kursu je seznámit studenty se základními koncepcemi práva
                              mezinárodního obchodu (tradiční koncepce, koncepce lex mercatoria)" ---
                              řekl bych, že lex mercatoria je právě to, co Vídeňská úmluva začíná
                              tvořit, bez používání tradiční kolizní metody nebo kolizních norem.
                              a taky, u stejné stránky:
                              " Cílem tohoto základního kursu je seznámit studenty s následující
                              problematikou . . ..V rámci předmětu jsou rozebrány následující otázky:
                              prameny mezinárodního práva soukromého (mezinárodní smlouvy, normy
                              vnitrostátní povahy), metody mezinárodního práva soukromého (zejména
                              kolizní ***a přímá***)"
                              --- kde zase v těch posledních třech slovech vidíme rozlišování mezi
                              kolizní metodou i přímou, nebo mezi používání kolizních norem i přímých.

                              Asi jsem se špatně vyjadřil a je více než zřejmé, proč překladám jenom
                              do angličtiny a nikdy v opačném směru. Ale mám dojem, že tento rozdíl je
                              tímhle, oč autor původního dokumentu se snažil mluvit.
                            • Michael Trittipo
                              Message 14 of 16 , Dec 4, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Michael Trittipo wrote:

                                >. . . největší část
                                >mezinárodního práva soúkromého je totožn<-é-><+á+> s tou oblástí, kter<-ou-><+á+> v
                                >angličtině má název . . ..
                                >
                                :-(
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.